Talk:Golf Voyage Tips and guide

Contents

Which links? The first one I tried worked for me, so do several others. -- (WT-en) Huttite 18:59, 29 Dec 2005 (EST)

OK, I'm a little worried by this article-- I'm not sure we really want to have a complete list of the world's golf courses here, especially unlike (say) Scuba diving golf can be practiced pretty much anywhere on the planet. Any way to limit the scope a little? (WT-en) Jpatokal 05:22, 3 Jan 2006 (EST)

I guess the issues here are fairly similar to Scuba, and the direction we should take will likely be the same. I imagined golf courses would be added until one region has enough to split into its own page - similar to Scuba diving in Australia. One thing I want to make sure we avoid is listing only the prestigious/expensive/big name golf courses in region - when I travel I prefer the more local ones. However I guess the other direction, listing details about all golf courses, whilst I personally would find it useful, may fall under the Slippery Slope category.(WT-en) Hkpatv 04:32, 6 Jan 2006 (EST)

But while places for scuba diving are destinations (full article), golf courses are attractions (single line item in an article), which is why I don't want to see them listed here... (WT-en) Jpatokal 05:51, 6 Jan 2006 (EST)

Not quite sure what you are getting at here, but I suppose the closest analogy would be between an individual dive sites, ie the reef or wreck, for example Racha Noi and a golf course, say Blue Canyon Country Club. I think that there should be a place to put details about both of these attractions in wikiTravel, but neither of them would fit into a City style article (could be played or dived based in any nearby town and you wouldn't want to overload the main article with stuff not of interest to most users). I would think that the most appropriate place for them would be in Diving in Phuket and Golfing in Phuket(WT-en) Hkpatv 04:49, 9 Jan 2006 (EST)

I would be fine with either article you propose (if there really is so much info that it overloads the main article). But the topic of discussion now is what to do with the plain old "Golf" page. (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:58, 9 Jan 2006 (EST)

Sorry for the slow response - I have moved some of the articles to their own pages - England/New Zealand/China which I guess makes more sense. The scope of this page will be reduced significantly.(WT-en) Hkpatv 02:55, 10 Feb 2006 (EST)

This section does need some reorganisation- I've made a start- but want to start a debate.

It seems sensible that each country entry lists their 3 most prestigious courses as a start with brief details. Is three the right number? Should it be more, should it be less? Surely we should have the same number for each country. We should then be looking at developing specic guides to each country as has been started for England for example, which can go into further depth.

There may then be a need for some of those countries with lots of golf courses to have further articles, on sub-units. The obvious example being the United States, due to its vastness. However even small countries with a disproportionate number of golf courses per head of population would probably need subdivision, e.g. Ireland, Wales and Scotland.

I would suggest on a countrywide site to perhaps say name the top half dozen couses in the area.

For deciding the countries we use for dividing the world and countries up within this golf article, rather than using political entitities, we use the countries recognised by the golf authorities- this would mainly affect the British Isles. So I don't see the point in seperate "Golf in Northern Ireland" and "Golf in the Republic", if sub division of Irleand is needed use the Provinces which the Golfing authorities use, and it would seem sensible from an ease of organisation perspective. Similarly there's no need for a "Golf in the UK" article either, that would be covered by articles on the three mainland countries plus the parts of the Ireland article relavant to Northern Ireland.

Recently an article called "Golf packing list" was created (as a two-line stub), and subsequently deleted, following the usual VFD procedure. Although the vote was to delete, there seems to be some feeling that the Golf article itself might usefully incorporate a packing list. The discussion is given below for reference purposes. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 14:34, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

• Delete. We don't want list for every sport. -- (WT-en) DanielC 17:04, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
• Delete or redirect to Golf. (WT-en) Pashley 19:04, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
• Delete or redirect to Golf....(WT-en) Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 19:20, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
• I'd prefer a redirect to Golf; that article doesn't currently have anything like a packing list, but it probably should. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:37, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

If changed slightly some of the stuff on the Governing Body of Golf. The "Royal and Ancient", is no longer a golfing governing body, it separated off the Governing Body functions into a separate organisation called the "R&A" in recent years. Of course may people always used to refer to the "Royal and Ancient" by the abbreviated form as the "R&A", however now they are separate organisations. The "Royal and Ancient" of course remains a very important organisation in the game of course, since of course it includes the famour "Old Course", but no longer has any role in the governance of the organisation (except of course as any other golf club has).

Also golf is governed jointly by the USGA and the R&A. (So I have re-edited the reference to the "R&A" being "the" governing body of golf). Both organisation have exclusive competence in certain matters within their territories- (remember the USGA doesn't just cover the USA, it covers certain other countries and territories), when it comes to the rules of golf both organisations jointly agree these to apply on a global level- so that you don't have differences between "American" and "Rest of the world" rules.

I am no golfing expert, but I know that the driving and the putting and the wooding and the ironing can be quite harmful to the local environment when taken out of its original Alba. Golf courses in arid areas seem to be particularly egregious cases Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

That may be true, but it seems more of an encyclopedic topic than one related to travel. Powers ^(talk) 00:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Don't pretty much all travel activities have an ecological impact? I'm not sure how you would compare golfing in New Mexico against flying London to Paris on a Boeing 737 to scuba diving on the Great Barrier reef.

That said perhaps it would be good to add an 'eco' section to all activity articles... --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Reply